SHWETA SHYAM PEDAMKAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-2(4) THANE, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2449/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2023AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a deposit of Rs. 5,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with hearing dates. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a change in tax consultants and her lack of understanding of tax procedures.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the case should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI.NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 01/11/2023

O R D E R Per : N.K. Choudhry (JM): This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09/11/2022 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, Ld. Commissioner] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay of 184 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the Assessee has claimed that her previous tax consultant who was dealing with the case of the Assessee and had filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner somehow could not purse the case of the Assessee and therefore the Assessee along with her husband approached another tax consultant, Shri Naresh kumar Jiwajka on or around 26/06/2023 who visited the portal of Income-tax department and came to know about passing of the ex- parte order dated 09/11/2022 by the Ld. Commissioner and thereafter who immediately filed the instant appeal.The Assessee being a house wife do not have much qualification and also do not know about the intricacies of income-tax law and therefore was unaware about the passing of the impugned order till 20th June, 2023. It is also a fact that vide summon dated 13/10/2017, husband of the Assessee was summoned by the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department at Ballard Estate and his statement was also recorded wherein he has informed the department that the share transactions as involved in the instant case were done by other persons, against which the department is making separate enquiry. However, the Assessing Officer, without considering the said facts, passed the assessment order. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and supported by affidavit by the Assessee. As the Assessee is not a highly educated person and also not handled the income-tax portal and/or appeal proceedings directly, but in fact relied upon the actions of the consultant and may be due to mis-communication or otherwise non-communication between the Assessee and her previous tax consultant, remained absent before the Ld. Commissioner. Thus, 3 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality we are inclined to condone the delay of 185 days in filing the instant appeal. Consequently, the same is condoned.

3.

Coming to the merit of the case, as the Assessee’s appeal was fixed for hearing by the Ld.Commissioner on 1/04/2021, 20/12/2021, 04/01/2022 and 24/01/2022, which remained un-complied with and resulted into passing of ex-parte impugned order in limine but not on merit by the ld. Commissioner. We observe that the Assessee before the Assessing Officer also remained absent and neither filed any reply nor any document in order to substantiate her claim, therefore, the Ld.Assessing Officer was constrained to pass the assessment order under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 28/11/2019.We also observe that period during which the Ld. Commissioner fixed the case was admittedly Covid-19 period, hence, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality and specifically the conduct of the Assessee qua non-appearance before the AO as well, we are of the considered view that substantial justice would be met by remanding case to the file of the Ld.Commissioner for decision afresh, but subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- in the Prime Minister’ National Relief Fund (PMNRF) within 30 days of receipt of this order. Suffice to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee is also directed to appear, if necessitates, and file the relevant reply/documents as would be necessary and needed for proper adjudication of the case by the Ld.Commissioner and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency.

4 ITA 2449/Mum/2023 Shweta ShyamPedamkar 4. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →